How well have the media covered hurricane Sandy? Scientists have their say.

As millions of people on the US east coast remain without power in the wake of hurricane Sandy, the media are still speculating over how far the storm can be linked to climate change. With a complicated range of factors affecting hurricane activity, we asked climate scientists how satisfied they are that the media got it right this time?

Measured media

Hurricane Sandy tore through the Caribbean and the US east coast last week, killing 160 people and causing $20 billion worth of damage. As the Guardian points out, Sandy has forced climate change further up the political and media agenda. Emilee Pierce from US media fact-checking website, Media Matters, told us:

“In the days leading up to landfall in the U.S…very few in the press mentioned the words ‘climate change.’ But once it hit New York and DC…the connections started coming — from journalists and politicians alike.”

Most news outlets carried the measured message from scientists that while some specific extreme events, such as heat waves, can be attributed to climate change, this is far more difficult for hurricanes. With this in mind, most scientists we spoke to seemed broadly pleased with media outlets’ coverage.

“While Hurricane Sandy was not directly attributable to global warming, scientists say it fits a pattern of more severe weather influenced by climate change”.

Polarised debate

But some outlets couldn’t help upping the ante. NBC Nightly News anchor Robert Bazell stated that events like Sandy should be considered the “new normal”. In response, Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado wrote in the Wall Street Journal that there are “no signs” that humans can yet be blamed for recent disasters like Hurricane Sandy.

Other scientists took a different view. Professor Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Carbon Brief that the NBC piece was an example of good reporting, describing Pielke Jr’s comments as “not helpful”.

Even some measured stories couldn’t escape a bit of spin. Trenberth also pointed to Bloomberg Businessweek’s cover story, ‘It’s global warming, stupid’, as an example of good scientific coverage. But although the story appears balanced and informative from a science perspective, BusinessWeek editor Josh Tyrangiel reportedly tweeted:

“Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid.”

Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s take on the famous catchphrase from Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Science content

An opinion expressed by meteorologist Dan Satterfield in his blog is that the media should concentrate less on attribution and more on the way climate change could exacerbate storm size and flooding.

Professor Tom Knutson, meteorology expert with the US Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, pointed to the New York Times as a good analysis of the nuances between linking hurricane activity and climate change. The article explains the scientific uncertainty surrounding what the past record of hurricane activity can tell us about the next few decades.

“A trap reporters can fall into is chasing after answers to a poorly worded strawman question: Did climate change cause this event? Instead the science will generally only be able to look at questions of attribution in a probabilistic sense: Has climate change altered the odds of events like this one occurring? How?”

So it seems that a few examples aside, scientists have been fairly satisfied with reporters’ representation of the science behind hurricanes and climate change – both what we know and what we don’t know. With Hurricane Sandy gone but far from forgotten, scientists seem hopeful that reporters can continue to ask the right questions about climate science.